We Keep Coding

Weighted k-means in python

After reading this post here about duplicate values in k-means clustering, I realized I cannot simply use unique points for clustering.
https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/152808/do-i-need-to-remove-duplicate-objects-for-cluster-analysis-of-objects
I have over 10000000 points, though only 8000 unique ones. Therefore, I initially thought that for speeding it up, I’d use unique points only. Seems like this is a bad idea.
To keep computational time down, this post suggests to add weights to each point. How can this be implemented in python?

Using K-Means package from Scikit library, clustering is performed for number of clusters as 11 here.
The array Y contains data that has been inserted as weights where as X has actual points that need to be clustered.
from sklearn.cluster import KMeans #For applying KMeans
##--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------##
#Starting k-means clustering
kmeans = KMeans(n_clusters=11, n_init=10, random_state=0, max_iter=1000)
#Running k-means clustering and enter the ‘X’ array as the input coordinates and ‘Y’
array as sample weights
wt_kmeansclus = kmeans.fit(X,sample_weight = Y)
predicted_kmeans = kmeans.predict(X, sample_weight = Y)
#Storing results obtained together with respective city-state labels
kmeans_results =
pd.DataFrame({"label":data_label,"kmeans_cluster":predicted_kmeans+1})
#Printing count of points alloted to each cluster and then the cluster centers
print(kmeans_results.kmeans_cluster.value_counts())

I think the post suggests to work with weighted average.
You can create a new dataset out of the old one, and the new dataset will have an extra attribute for each point, it's frequency (i.e it's weight).
Every time you calculate the new centroid for each cluster, take the weighted average of all points of that cluster (instead of calculating the simple mean of all points).
PS: Manipulating the dataset is dangerous. I'd parallelize the code if computational cost is a major factor.

k-means using signature matrix generated from minhash

I have used minhash on documents and their shingles to generate a signature matrix from these documents. I have verified that the signature matrices are good as comparing jaccard distances of known similar documents (say, two articles about the same sports team or two articles about the same world event) give correct readings.
My question is: does it make sense to use this signature matrix to perform k-means clustering?
I've tried using the signature vectors of documents and calculating the euclidean distance of these vectors inside the iterative kmeans algorithm and I always get nonsense for my clusters. I know there should be two clusters (my data set is a few thousands articles about either sports or business) and in the end my two clusters are always just random. I'm convinced that the randomness of hashing words into integers is going to skew the distance function every time and overpower similar hash values in two signature matrices.
[Edited to highlight the question]

TL;DR
Short answer: No, it doesn't make sense to use the signature matrix for K-means clustering. At least, not without significant manipulation.
Some explanations
I'm coming at this after a few days of figuring out how to do the same thing (text clustering) myself. I might be wrong, but my perception is that you're making the same mistake I was: using MinHash to build an [n_samples x n_perms] matrix, then using this as a features matrix X on which you run k-means.
I'm guessing you're doing something like:
# THIS CODE IS AN EXAMPLE OF WRONG! DON'T IMPLEMENT!
import numpy as np
import MinHash
from sklearn.cluster import KMeans
# Get your data.
data = get_your_list_of_strings_to_cluster()
n_samples = len(data)
# Minhash all the strings
n_perms = 128
minhash_values = np.zeros((n_samples, n_perms), dtype='uint64')
minhashes = []
for index, string in enumerate(data):
minhash = MinHash(num_perm=n_perms)
for gram in ngrams(string, 3):
minhash.update("".join(gram).encode('utf-8'))
minhash_values[index, :] = minhash.hashvalues
# Compute clusters
clusterer = KMeans(n_clusters=8)
clusters = clusterer.fit_predict(minhash_values)
This will behave horribly because of the fateful flaw - the minhash_values array is not a feature matrix. Each row is basically a list of features (hashes) which appear in that sample of text... but they're not column-aligned so features are scattered into the wrong dimensions.
To turn that into a feature matrix, you'd have to look at all the unique hashes in minhash_values then create a matrix which is [n_samples x n_unique_hashes], (n_unique_hashes is the number of unique features found) setting it to 1 where the text sample contains that feature, 0 elsewhere. Typically this matrix would be large and sparse. You could then cluster on that.
Alternative way of text clustering
What an unbelievable hassle though! Fortunately, scikit-learn is there to help. It provides some very easy to use and scalable vectorisers:
So your problem becomes easily solved:
# Imports
from sklearn.feature_extraction.text import HashingVectorizer
from sklearn.cluster import KMeans
# Get your data
data = get_your_list_of_strings_to_cluster()
# Get your feature matrix
text_features = HashingVectorizer(analyzer="word").fit_transform(data)
# Compute clusters
clusterer = KMeans(n_clusters=2)
clusters = clusterer.fit_predict(text_features)
And there you go. From there:
Fine tune your vectoriser (try TfidfVectorizer too, tweak the input params, etc),
Try other clusterers (f/ex I find
HDBSCAN miles better
than kmeans - quicker, more robust, more accurate, less tuning).
Hope this helps.
Tom

Randomly sample x% of each cluster

I am working on a project aiming to exploit the cluster structure of my dataset to improve a supervised active learning classifier for binray classification. I use the following code to cluster my data, X using scikit-leanr's K-Means implementation:
k = KMeans(n_clusters=(i+2), precompute_distances=True, ).fit(X)
df = pd.DataFrame({'cluster' : k.labels_, 'percentage posotive' : y})
a = df.groupby('cluster').apply(lambda cluster:cluster.sum()/cluster.count())
The two classes are positive (represented by a 1) and negative (represented by a 0) and are stored in an array y.
This code first clusters X and then stores in a data frame each clusters number and the number of percentage of positive instances within it.
I would now like to randomly select points from each cluster, until I have sampled 15%. How can I do this?
As requested here is a simplified script including a test dataset:
from sklearn.cluster import KMeans
import pandas as pd
X = [[1,2], [2,5], [1,2], [3,3], [1,2], [7,3], [1,1], [2,19], [1,11], [54,3], [78,2], [74,36]]
y = [0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0]
k = KMeans(n_clusters=(4), precompute_distances=True, ).fit(X)
df = pd.DataFrame({'cluster' : k.labels_, 'percentage posotive' : y})
a = df.groupby('cluster').apply(lambda cluster:cluster.sum()/cluster.count())
print(a)
Note: The real datasets are much larger consisting of thousands of features and thousands of data instances.
In response to #SandipanDey:
I can't tell you too much, but basically we are dealing with a highly unbalanced dataset (1:10,000) and we are only interested in identifying the minority class examples with recall > 95% whilst reducing the number of labels requested. (Recall needs to be so high as its related to healthcare.)
The minority examples cluster together, and any cluster containing a positive instances will usually contain at least x%, so by sampling x% we ensure that we identify all clusters with any positive instances. So we are able to quickly reduce the size of the dataset with potential positives. This parital dataset can then be used for active learning. Our approach is loosely inspired by 'Hierarchical Sampling for Active Learning'

If I understood you correctly, the following code should serve the purpose:
import numpy as np
# For each cluster
# (1) Find all the points from X that are assigned to the cluster.
# (2) Choose x% from those points randomly.
n_clusters = 4
x = 0.15 # percentage
for i in range(n_clusters):
# (1) indices of all the points from X that belong to cluster i
C_i = np.where(k.labels_ == i)[0].tolist()
n_i = len(C_i) # number of points in cluster i
# (2) indices of the points from X to be sampled from cluster i
sample_i = np.random.choice(C_i, int(x * n_i))
print i, sample_i
Just for curiosity, how are you going to use these x% points for active learning?

Python Clustering 'purity' metric

I'm using a Gaussian Mixture Model (GMM) from sklearn.mixture to perform clustering of my data set.
I could use the function score() to compute the log probability under the model.
However, I am looking for a metric called 'purity' which is defined in this article.
How can I implement it in Python? My current implementation looks like this:
from sklearn.mixture import GMM
# X is a 1000 x 2 array (1000 samples of 2 coordinates).
# It is actually a 2 dimensional PCA projection of data
# extracted from the MNIST dataset, but this random array
# is equivalent as far as the code is concerned.
X = np.random.rand(1000, 2)
clusterer = GMM(3, 'diag')
clusterer.fit(X)
cluster_labels = clusterer.predict(X)
# Now I can count the labels for each cluster..
count0 = list(cluster_labels).count(0)
count1 = list(cluster_labels).count(1)
count2 = list(cluster_labels).count(2)
But I can not loop through each cluster in order to compute the confusion matrix (according this question)

David's answer works but here is another way to do it.
import numpy as np
from sklearn import metrics
def purity_score(y_true, y_pred):
# compute contingency matrix (also called confusion matrix)
contingency_matrix = metrics.cluster.contingency_matrix(y_true, y_pred)
# return purity
return np.sum(np.amax(contingency_matrix, axis=0)) / np.sum(contingency_matrix)
Also if you need to compute Inverse Purity, all you need to do is replace "axis=0" by "axis=1".

sklearn doesn't implement a cluster purity metric. You have 2 options:
Implement the measurement using sklearn data structures yourself. This and this have some python source for measuring purity, but either your data or the function bodies need to be adapted for compatibility with each other.
Use the (much less mature) PML library, which does implement cluster purity.

A very late contribution.
You can try to implement it like this, pretty much like in this gist
def purity_score(y_true, y_pred):
"""Purity score
Args:
y_true(np.ndarray): n*1 matrix Ground truth labels
y_pred(np.ndarray): n*1 matrix Predicted clusters
Returns:
float: Purity score
"""
# matrix which will hold the majority-voted labels
y_voted_labels = np.zeros(y_true.shape)
# Ordering labels
## Labels might be missing e.g with set like 0,2 where 1 is missing
## First find the unique labels, then map the labels to an ordered set
## 0,2 should become 0,1
labels = np.unique(y_true)
ordered_labels = np.arange(labels.shape[0])
for k in range(labels.shape[0]):
y_true[y_true==labels[k]] = ordered_labels[k]
# Update unique labels
labels = np.unique(y_true)
# We set the number of bins to be n_classes+2 so that
# we count the actual occurence of classes between two consecutive bins
# the bigger being excluded [bin_i, bin_i+1[
bins = np.concatenate((labels, [np.max(labels)+1]), axis=0)
for cluster in np.unique(y_pred):
hist, _ = np.histogram(y_true[y_pred==cluster], bins=bins)
# Find the most present label in the cluster
winner = np.argmax(hist)
y_voted_labels[y_pred==cluster] = winner
return accuracy_score(y_true, y_voted_labels)

The currently top voted answer correctly implements the purity metric, but may not be the most appropriate metric in all cases, because it does not ensure that each predicted cluster label is assigned only once to a true label.
For example, consider a dataset that is very imbalanced, with 99 examples of one label and 1 example of another label. Then any clustering (e.g: having two equal clusters of size 50) will achieve purity of at least 0.99, rendering it a useless metric.
Instead, in cases where the number of clusters is the same as the number of labels, cluster accuracy may be more appropriate. This has the advantage of mirroring classification accuracy in an unsupervised setting. To compute cluster accuracy, we need to use the Hungarian algorithm to find the optimal matching between cluster labels and true labels. The SciPy function linear_sum_assignment does this:
import numpy as np
from sklearn import metrics
from scipy.optimize import linear_sum_assignment
def cluster_accuracy(y_true, y_pred):
# compute contingency matrix (also called confusion matrix)
contingency_matrix = metrics.cluster.contingency_matrix(y_true, y_pred)
# Find optimal one-to-one mapping between cluster labels and true labels
row_ind, col_ind = linear_sum_assignment(-contingency_matrix)
# Return cluster accuracy
return contingency_matrix[row_ind, col_ind].sum() / np.sum(contingency_matrix)

Use K-means to learn features in Python

Question
I implemented a K-Means algorithm in Python. First I apply PCA and whitening to the input data. Then I use k-means to successfully subtract k centroids out of the data.
How can I use those centroids to understand the "features" learnt? Are the centroids already the features (doesn't seem like this to me) or do I need to combine them with the input data again?
Because of some answers: K-means is not "just" a method for clustering, instead it's a vector quantization method. That said the goal of k-means is to describe a dataset with a reduced number of feature vectors. Therefore there are big analogies to methods like Sparse Filtering/ Learning regarding the potential outcome.
Code Example
# Perform K-means, data already pre-processed
centroids = k_means(matrix_pca_whitened,1000)
# Assign data to centroid
idx,_ = vq(song_matrix_pca,centroids)

The clusters produced by the K-mean algorithms separate your input space into K regions. When you have new data, you can tell which region it belongs to, and thus classify it.
The centroids are just a property of these clusters.
You can have a look at the scikit-learn doc if you are unsure, and at the map to make sure you choose the right algorithm.

This is sort of a circular question: "understand" requires knowing something about the features outside of the k-means process. All that k-means does is to identify k groups of physical proximity. It says "there are clumps of stuff in these 'k' places, and here's how the all the points choose the nearest."
What this means in terms of the features is up to the data scientist, rather than any deeper meaning that k-means can ascribe. The variance of each group may tell you a little about how tightly those points are clustered. Do remember that k-means also chooses starting points at random; an unfortunate choice can easily give a sub-optimal description of the space.
A centroid is basically the "mean" of the cluster. If you can ascribe some deeper understanding from the distribution of centroids, great -- but that depends on the data and features, rather than any significant meaning devolving from k-means.
Is that the level of answer you need?

The centroids are in fact the features learnt. Since k-means is a method of vector quantization we look up which observation belongs to which cluster and therefore is best described by the feature vector (centroid).
By having one observation e.g. separated into 10 patches before, the observation might consist of 10 feature vectors max.
Example:
Method: K-means with k=10
Dataset: 20 observations divided into 2 patches each = 40 data vectors
We now perform K-means on this patched dataset and get the nearest centroid per patch. We could then create a vector for each of the 20 observations with the length 10 (=k) and if patch 1 belongs to centroid 5 and patch 2 belongs to centroid 9 the vector could look like: 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0.
This means that this observation consists of the centroids/ features 5 and 9. You could also measure use the distance between patch and centroid instead of this hard assignment.